Imported products should be as safe as domestic products.  And should bear the cost of being that safe. 

The Senate approved a bill yesterday to strengthen the Consumer Product Safety Commission.  Its future was unclear because the National Association of Manufacturers and others opposed making imports more safe.   The administration opposed the bill, too, supporting weaker legislation approved earlier in the House.  A conference committee will sort it out. 

Mattel recalled over 20 million imported toys last year.  Mattel's chairman Robert A. Eckert, told Congress, in a hearing last September:

“Our standards were ignored and our rules were broken,” [Mattel chairman Robert A. Eckert] said. “We were let down and we let you down.”

But Mattel fought this legislation, with NAM and others, tooth and nail.  Yes, they're really sorry.

This was reported today:

Both the House and Senate legislation would increase the budget and staff and would grant the agency the authority to issue rules and penalize companies even when the commission lacks a quorum. Both measures would also allow far less lead in toys.

But the Senate measure goes further. It would create a public database of complaints and would permit the attorneys general to seek court injunctions if products endanger residents and the federal government is not acting. It would make mandatory many toy safety standards that are now voluntary and as part of that change require that toys be tested in compliance with a comprehensive set of rules.

The Senate bill would also increase the possible maximum penalty for violations to $20 million, from the current $1.25 million. And it would make it a crime for a company to sell a product that has been recalled.

Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota had a good line:

“We’ve seen toy after toy recalled in this country; 29 million toys were recalled in 2007 alone,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota and the author of the bill’s provision for sharp reductions in lead levels in toys. “We’ve seen a record number of imports coming in from other countries that don’t have the safety standards that we do.”

“The current system has been broken by years of neglect, an agency that hasn’t told the truth about the problems and an administration that has turned its back on the problems,” Ms. Klobuchar said.

Meanwhile:

Criminal charges were filed on Thursday against four executives at two American companies who imported toothpaste from China that contained a poison used in some antifreeze, the city attorney in Los Angeles said in a statement. 

Who told the Canada government that the NAFTA critique between Obama and Clinton was only posturing?  

I was at a Wednesday conference in DC where a Canadian said that the release of information in Canada could only have occurred if the Prime Minister Stephen Harper authorized the leak.  Some argue the incident caused Obama to lose votes in Ohio.  That claim is plausible.  While the poll trend lines in Ohio showed the Obama momentum was not as strong in Ohio as other states, i.e. Clinton's lat 2007 lead diminished more slowly and never was eliminated, about 59% of late-deciding voters were claimed by exit polls to choose Clinton (yes, I know nobody trusts exit polls).

The Harper government is investigating itself.  The Prime Minister's Chief of Staff Ian Brodie apparently told reporters of the "posturing" representations by Clinton's campaign.  Some in the Canadian parliament have called for the firing of Brodie.  And have accused...

Mr. Brodie of acting on behalf of Mr. Harper who, Mr. Layton argues, hoped the leaks would minimize debate about Nafta in the American campaign and help Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate from Arizona, who has pledged support for Nafta.

The dust is not settled yet.

Obama apparently won the Texas caucuses, which gave him the most Texas delegates over Clinton.

Clinton won the primary vote 51-47.  But only 65% of delegates are apportioned by the primaries.  And the rest by the caucuses.  The results were not out before today.

He received 6 or 8 more delegates than Clinton depending upon who you believe.   

Chavez is sending troops to the Columbian border.  Rattling his sabers. 

The wacko free traders say we need to sign the Columbia Free Trade Agreement because of this?

So allowing Columbian companies to sue our municipalities for interfering with their investments will help? And faux harmonization of food and product safety laws will help?  Transnational corporate lobbyist written tariff schedules on pop-up books will deter Chavez?  [Yes, Columbia is one of the largest producers of pop-up books in the world.]

If there's a problem, then send them military support.  Advice.  Gear.  Military stuff.  Don't just rubber stamp another stupid NAFTA-style outsourcing agreement.

My point, if you did not get it, is that the Columbia FTA has nothing to do with Chavez or foreign relations. 

The people who try to sell you this snake oil are either dumb, or think you are dumb.  Watch now for editorial boards populated with journalism school graduates who never took economics to scold us with lectures on Economics 101.